BRIAN A. HALLMAN
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
# Legal Brief: Hallman v. State of Florida **Holding:** A probation revocation based on commission of a new offense cannot rest solely on hearsay evidence; the State must present direct, non-hearsay evidence linking the defendant to the offense. **Outcome:** The First District Court of Appeal reversed Hallman's four probation revocation orders for dealing in stolen property because the trial court relied exclusively on hearsay evidence, and remanded with instructions to reinstate probation.
[1] A probation revocation may not be based solely upon hearsay evidence.
[2] When seeking to revoke probation based on the commission of a new offense, the State must present direct, non-hearsay evidence linking the defendant to the commission of…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Hearsay Evidence In Probation Revocation Hearings cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
Nos. 1D18-4070
1D18-4071 1D18-4072 1D18-4073
_____________________________
BRIAN A. HALLMAN,
Appellant,
v. STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County. Andrew J. Decker, III, Judge.
July 23, 2019 PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Brian A. Hallman, appeals four revocation orders in which the trial court found that he violated probation by committing the new law offense of dealing in stolen property.∗ Appellant argues, and the State concedes, that the revocation was improperly based solely on hearsay evidence. Because we agree with Appellant and accept the State’s concession, we reverse
∗ We have consolidated Appellant’s four appeals for purposes of this opinion.
2
Appellant’s revocation and remand with instructions that his probation be reinstated. See Melton v. State, 65 So. 3d 96, 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (“While hearsay is admissible at a probation revocation hearing, a revocation of probation may not be based solely upon hearsay evidence, and where the state seeks to revoke probation based on a violation . . . by the commission of a new offense, it is required to present direct, non-hearsay evidence linking the defendant to the commission of the offense.”); see also Johnson v. State, 962 So. 2d 394, 397-98 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (reversing a revocation order where the only evidence linking the appellant to the stolen items was hearsay); J.F. v. State, 889 So. 2d 130, 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (reversing the revocation order where the only proof of possession of the stolen property by the appellant was based upon hearsay). REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.
LEWIS, MAKAR, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________
Lucas J. Taylor of Sellers, Taylor & Morrison, P.A., Live Oak, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Quentin Humphrey, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stewart v. Stewart (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- J.F. v. State, 889 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Johnson v. State, 962 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Melton v. State, 65 So. 3d 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Osiris Chaviano v. State, 65 So. 3d 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)